Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Morning Links: Alabama Massacre, Markets Rally, Spending Bill to Obama for Signature
• Alabama gunman goes on two-county rampage, kills 11, then himself. German gunman kills nine.
• Dow, world markets rally yesterday.
• Obama instructs federal agencies to review Bush signing statements, but won't rule out using them himself.
• Kim Jong Il unanimously re-elected leader of North Korea. Celebrates by writing six novels, successfully hunting a unicorn, impregnating seven Swedish women.
• Senate passes Obama's massive spending bill.
• Democrats block D.C.'s experimental voucher program, successfully preventing any more of D.C.'s poor from sending their kids to the same schools the kids of politicians attend.
• D.C. denies woman's gun permit because her gun is an unapproved color.
TofuSushi|3.11.09 @ 8:53AM|#
Alabama gunman goes on two-county rampage, kills 11, then
himself. German gunman kills nine.
More proof that gun control saves lives.
|3.11.09 @ 8:56AM|#
The German would have killed 11 but he took his government mandated 3 hour lunch break.
|3.11.09 @ 8:59AM|#
re: unapproved gun color
Peter Nickles, the city's attorney general, said he had not
seen the lawsuit and could not discuss its details. But he said he
is confident that the D.C. regulations are "completely appropriate"
under the Second Amendment.
There's no such thing as "completely appropriate" regulations under
the Second Amendment...especially when YOU DIDN"T READ THE DAMN
LAWSUIT!
|3.11.09 @ 9:02AM|#
Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee
HEDGE-FOND
Die Kapitalabflüsse gestalteten sich in der Branche in Europa und
den Vereinigten Staaten allerdings sehr unterschiedlich: Während
amerikanische Hedge-Fonds in großem Umfang juristische Sperren
nutzten, die eine sofortige Rückzahlung von Anlagegeld an die
Kunden beschränkten oder hinauszögerten (Gates), ist dies bei
europäischen Hedge-Fonds weniger üblich. Auch gibt es in Europa
mehr Dachfonds, in die Privatinvestoren investieren. Diese hatten
die erste Kündigungswelle bei Hedge-Fonds im Herbst 2008 ausgelöst.
Die Kapitalabflüsse aus Hedge-Fonds waren daher in der zweiten
Jahreshälfte vor allem in Europa relativ hoch. Die Mittel
europäischer Hedge-Fonds schrumpften nach Einschätzung von Morgan
Stanley um 25 bis 30 Prozent.
In den Vereinigten Staaten beliefen sich die Mittelabflüsse
zunächst "nur" auf 15 bis 20 Prozent. Dies erklärt, warum der
weltweite Verband der Hedge-Fonds, die Alternative Investment
Management Association (AIMA), kürzlich bekanntgab, dass das
Anlagekapital der 1200 bei der AIMA registrierten Mitglieder jetzt
zum Großteil von institutionellen Investoren gehalten werde und
nicht mehr von vermögenden Einzelpersonen, wie dies früher der Fall
gewesen war.
TofuSushi|3.11.09 @ 9:03AM|#
The lady had a scary silver and black gun. If the government says you should not have those then you shouldn't.
Taktix®|3.11.09 @ 9:07AM|#
Dow, world markets rally yesterday.
I love how the market rallied for one day, and everyone in the
media was practically proclaiming the recession over.
It was one fucking day, and percentage-wise, not that significant.
The largest point gain, by percentage, in all U.S. History came
during the Great Depression.
A single day means nothing; only a sustained trend matters...
econprof|3.11.09 @ 9:09AM|#
Germany wins! the German guy killed 17 people, the American only
got 11 victims!
This shows the superiority of the pacifistic European model, which
forbids guns and violence, over the American gun culture with its
fetish for weapons!
Guy Smiley|3.11.09 @ 9:14AM|#
These morning links are bumming me out, Radley.
Please add:
"In other news, Natalie Portman is still
good-lookin'.
|3.11.09 @ 9:28AM|#
The German would have killed 11 but he took his government
mandated 3 hour lunch break.
His Kraut efficiency came through. His toll is up to 17 now.
TofuSushi|3.11.09 @ 9:30AM|#
Epi, was that a government toll or a Libertarian Corporate Stranglehold on Travel toll?
stuartl|3.11.09 @ 9:32AM|#
Senate passes Obama's massive spending bill.
Dow, world markets rally yesterday.
A single day means nothing; only a sustained trend
matters...
Taktix, you are missing the obvious linkage. Our troubles are over,
the spending bill that will save the world passed.
Taktix®|3.11.09 @ 9:32AM|#
"In other news, Natalie Portman is still
good-lookin'.
I can't view this from work. She still have no tits?
Yeah, thanks, I'm good...
Warty|3.11.09 @ 9:33AM|#
My national pride is a little offended...we have a perfectly good mass shooting, and some fucking Kraut had to upstage us. Bullshit.
Jester|3.11.09 @ 9:36AM|#
Of course, the red-neck biathlon may have just been invented. What kinda car y'all think should be used?
|3.11.09 @ 9:37AM|#
His Kraut efficiency came through. His toll is up to 17
now.
My Grandma Kurtz must be so proud.
|3.11.09 @ 9:38AM|#
What kinda car y'all think should be used?
Be careful. You might trigger an outbreak of The Great Ford/Chevy
Truck Debate.
|3.11.09 @ 9:39AM|#
Naga, drop the TofuSushi routine. You're funnier without
it.
we have a perfectly good mass shooting, and some fucking Kraut
had to upstage us
I'm sure another American will soon step up to the plate and beat
him.
Abdul|3.11.09 @ 9:40AM|#
His Kraut efficiency came through. His toll is up to 17
now.
But how do those metric victims convert to standard imperial
measurements?
|3.11.09 @ 9:44AM|#
But how do those metric victims convert to standard imperial
measurements?
Aryans, being the master race, are actually worth 1.238 compared to
a normal human, but the victims in Alabama were most likely
Scots-Irish, so they're worth about the same as a chimp, or
possibly a macaque. A retarded chimp. They all want cake.
Atlanta Matt|3.11.09 @ 9:47AM|#
The non-stop media coverage of these events will be sure to push
a few more losers over the edge as well. Better to be wanted by the
police than by no one at all.
"I'll show them. The whole world will share my pain!"
Kieffer|3.11.09 @ 9:48AM|#
I was all set to express indignation at your use of the word "election" to describe the farce with which Kim Jong Il thinly attempts to legitimize his dictatorship ... but then I remembered that I live in Chicago.
|3.11.09 @ 9:50AM|#
His toll is up to 17 now.
The fuckers kept telling him to follow them on Twitter.
Lefiti|3.11.09 @ 9:50AM|#
Reading the libertarian take on stuff is like taking a sip of milk and realizing it's sour. You fucking twots haven't had a fresh idea since since Milton Friedman rehabilitated greed.
!|3.11.09 @ 9:58AM|#
I suppose if you strike out all the time, it doesn't matter how you spell twat.
|3.11.09 @ 10:00AM|#
It was one fucking day, and percentage-wise, not that
significant.
What did it, almost but not quite make up for last week?
|3.11.09 @ 10:01AM|#
Lefiti, who do you think is going to win this season of Dancing With the Stars?
|3.11.09 @ 10:02AM|#
Moral of the story: markets respond well to school
shootings.
Or, whackadoodle North Korean elections.
|3.11.09 @ 10:03AM|#
Didn't we establish last week that "TWoT" was the abbreviation
for the Robert Jordan Fantasy Series that Shall Not be
Named?
So really, it's a much worse insult than "twat".
Warty|3.11.09 @ 10:13AM|#
Going down on the crimson tide isn't so bad. Just keep some wet naps handy.
|3.11.09 @ 10:15AM|#
Going down on the crimson tide isn't so bad. Just keep some
wet naps handy.
Blood is an excellent lubricant, too.
Warty|3.11.09 @ 10:29AM|#
Lefiti is the imbecilized form of pig-felcher. It's OK dude, I'd change my name too.
|3.11.09 @ 10:32AM|#
"A single day means nothing; only a sustained trend
matters.."
That's right! Remember, there was a rally up after the stock market
crash of 1929.
BDB|3.11.09 @ 10:33AM|#
Since this is an open thread, here's another "isolated incident"
of police brutality related to asset forfeiture laws:
You can drive into this dusty fleck of a town near the Texas-Louisiana state line if you're African American, but you might not be able to drive out of it-at least not with your car, your cash, your jewelry or other valuables.
That's because the police here allegedly have found a way to strip motorists, many of them black, of their property without ever charging them with a crime. Instead they offer out-of-towners a grim choice: Sign over your belongings to the town, or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes.
More than 140 people reluctantly accepted that deal from June 2006 to June 2008, according to court records. Among them were a black grandmother from Akron, Ohio, who surrendered $4,000 in cash after Tenaha police pulled her over, and an interracial couple from Houston, who gave up more than $6,000 after police threatened to seize their children and put them into foster care, the court documents show. Neither the grandmother nor the couple were charged with or convicted of any crime.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-texas-profiling11-2009mar11,0,507135.story
Really disgusting.
|3.11.09 @ 10:36AM|#
"Democrats block D.C.'s experimental voucher program,
successfully preventing any more of D.C.'s poor from sending their
kids to the same schools the kids of politicians attend."
And I thought Democrats were for the poor. I guess the money they
get from the teachers' unions is more important.
jester|3.11.09 @ 10:52AM|#
Thanks for the link BDB. All I can say is welcome to the Big
Thicket. Scary-as-shit place. Thankfully, there is no real reason
to even have to pass through there.
My wife did recently and surprise, surprise, ended up with a
ticket. So much for short cuts. Stay on the interstate. At least
there you can predict the HP to be in the dip where he'll pick up
10 mph on you.
Who said the interstates weren't tollways?
|3.11.09 @ 11:13AM|#
BDB-
Do you think those cops would try to so extort on an interstate
closer to the Rio Grande? Methinks that they would be too chicken
shit to try it knowing that they might just pull over a car with a
drug cartel crew inside.
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:15AM|#
You know, look at all the union threads lately where people go
"well, you know we have to have restrictions on unions because
those union guys, you know they might go out and beat up people if
they knew they said no the union."
Well, you know, we have to have restrictions on those gun-owners,
because you know, they might go out and do horrible things like
kill half their families. I haven't seen any "unions go wild and
kill 11 people" stories today, but there does seem to be this one
on gunmen.
Ain't it funny how logic works?
TofuSushi|3.11.09 @ 11:18AM|#
MNG, thanks for bringing that up. All of these myths of union
violence are just a means of scaring people away from unions.
We need card check to bring things back into balance.
|3.11.09 @ 11:19AM|#
BDB, is this the town that has billboards just outside of it
warning people not to drive through for fear of getting fucked over
by the town police?
If not, it should be.
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:19AM|#
Tofusushi
You're cute.
Where's that story about union mobs killing 11 people today?
Or yesterday?
Or the day before?
I mean, we gotta have restrictions on unions because they might
hurt someone! I mean, there have been times in our history where
they have hurt people, so restrictions are necessary!
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:21AM|#
What was it, about 20-30 thousand Americans were killed by guns
last year.
How many thousand Americans were killed by unions last year?
But we have to have these restrictions on unions because hell, we
all know how dangerous those guys are!
But no restrictions on guns. They're safe as kittens...
TofuSushi|3.11.09 @ 11:23AM|#
I like kittens too. My lesbian couple friends call me kitten when I make breakfast for them.
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:23AM|#
My God, it just occurred to me that UNION MEMBER'S MIGHT GET
THEIR HANDS ON GUNS!
The horror.
|3.11.09 @ 11:24AM|#
MNG, you're right. The First Amendment protects their rights to peacably assemble and if that is in the form of a union, so be it. But no one should be required to use card check because some unions want it. And if a union goes beyond a peaceable assembly they get to be broken up. Period.
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:26AM|#
Nick
What do you mean "no one should be required to use card
check?"
You mean no one should be allowed to be approached by an organizer
and asked to sign the card?
TofuSushi|3.11.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Is MNG a bot or script that just runs and comments without bothering to understand, well, anything?
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:28AM|#
All kidding aside, I'm against gun control.
Most people with guns do no harm with them. We have laws against
the bad things people might do with guns. That's enough.
Just like most unions don't harm anyone. We have laws against the
bad things unions might do to people if they knew they declined to
unionize t heir workplace. That's enough.
|3.11.09 @ 11:28AM|#
Yes, MNG, the entire argument on these boards against unions is
bed-wetting that they might ATTACK!
My new favorite phrase: You are a pyromaniac in a field of straw
men.
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:29AM|#
Tofu
Sigh. What is it I'm not understanding. Please, oh please, explain
it to me.
Are you one of these guys who thinks that someone not agreeing with
you is the same as not understanding what you said?
Warty|3.11.09 @ 11:30AM|#
I like how being against card check is rephrased as being for restrictions as unions. Nice trick, dude.
|3.11.09 @ 11:31AM|#
MNG, I'm saying why does this need to be legislated at all? By doing so, is that not a requirement of some sort? In reality, card check is being used to intimidate. Otherwise, secret ballots would work just fine. But, union leaders don't like secret ballots because sometimes people feel free to give their honest vote (and that is sometimes not in their favor) rather than be threatened (even if the threat is only imaginary). If there is no threat, what's wrong with privacy in one's vote?
|3.11.09 @ 11:31AM|#
If the law was about employers being able to demand written proof of who was organizing a union, the left would be howling about intimidation until their lungs fell out. Hypocrites.
|3.11.09 @ 11:32AM|#
You know, look at all the union threads lately where people
go "well, you know we have to have restrictions on unions because
those union guys, you know they might go out and beat up people if
they knew they said no the union."
Again, I smell straw. The only claim that I can recall is that
unions might intimidate people into signing cards. Anyone with any
familiarity with unions will know that intimidation and retaliation
(not necessarily violent) are very much part of the organizer/shop
stewards stock in trade.
I'm still waiting for any kind of facially plausible argument on
what is wrong with secret ballots, BTW.
One of the problems with card check is that it will completely
disenfranchise at least some members of the workforce. Once the
union gets 51% of the cards signed, that's it; no election, and the
other 49% get no say. Granted, they might have been outvoted, but I
still think there's a difference between having something imposed
after you voted against it, and having it imposed after you had no
chance at all.
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:34AM|#
Umm, FrBunny...Let me post some things from last nite's
thread:
Anonymous | March 10, 2009, 12:05pm | #
Who actually supports this with any reasoning, and what are those
reasons? All I can see coming from this is violence, both involving
property and life.
Why is this fair? Would this not lead to peer pressure for those
against to sign?
Federal Dog | March 10, 2009, 1:00pm | #
"It prevents The Man from harassing workers who want to vote for
the union."
No -- a secret ballot keeps the names of people who vote for the
union secret from both union and employer.
Depriving workers of the right to a secret ballot serves only one
purpose: It enables union thugs to readily identify any dissent to
union oppression and to retaliate so as to suppress any further
dissent.
FTG | March 10, 2009, 1:08pm | #
What happens in a work place that unionizes when everyone knows who
was against unionization?
The question answers itself.
PapayaSF | March 10, 2009, 1:52pm | #
aix42: Yes, the card check backers have various hand-waving
arguments that don't really make any sense to me, either. Around
here, the late, unlamented joe basically argued that card check was
a very good thing, but that it really wouldn't change anything
important, so all us naysayers were just stupid and anti-worker.
Also, all instances of union violence and intimidation were
"anecdotal" and should be ignored.
Federal Dog | March 10, 2009, 7:15pm | #
"since the % of people who repeatedly say they would join a union
is far higher than the % that are now in unions, it would FREE up
these people a bit to realize their voluntary wishes."
They are already free to vote, by secret ballot, for unionization.
They choose not to do so.
The only purpose of stripping people of a private vote is to
subject them to union intimidation in order to force unionization
that people reject of their own free will.
jester | March 10, 2009, 9:44pm | #
No MNGoloid. They shit their pants over coercion as in force.
As in: milk in the gas tank, slashed tires, false reports about
work performance, that kinda shit.
And on, and on, and on.
Taktix®|3.11.09 @ 11:34AM|#
Well, you know, we have to have restrictions on those
gun-owners, because you know, they might go out and do horrible
things like kill half their families. I haven't seen any "unions go
wild and kill 11 people" stories today, but there does seem to be
this one on gunmen.
Ain't it funny how logic works?
Yes, it is.
Systematic violence by otherwise sane people vs. random and
unpredictable violence by a crazy fuck.
Very similar...
Kickstart|3.11.09 @ 11:34AM|#
"Democrats block D.C.'s experimental voucher program"
Huge mistake, bith morally and politically.
|3.11.09 @ 11:35AM|#
What I would like is a detailed explanation of why card check is good. No rephrasing, no bullshit: why is not having secret ballots positive for workers? No card check supporter ever answers this question.
|3.11.09 @ 11:35AM|#
• Democrats block D.C.'s experimental voucher program, successfully preventing any more of D.C.'s poor from sending their kids to the same schools the kids of politicians attend.
bookworm | March 11, 2009, 10:36am | #
And I thought Democrats were for the poor. I guess the money they get from the teachers' unions is more important.
bookworm,
Yep, it's electoral politics at it's worst. Washington's three
electoral votes are going to the Democratic nominee anyway. Keeping
that in mind, there is no need to give 1700 poor children an escape
from that dysfuncional completely fucked up
school system.
NEA and AFT members are spread throughout the country, many
residing in competitive states or districts. Their votes may matter
on who gets to be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority
Leader.
We can now drop the pretense that Democrats care about the poor.
Democrats care about power and decided to fuck those kids in order
to help maintain it.
For the record,
April, 02, 2008
An education spending report released Tuesday by the census indicates that school districts nationally spent an average of $9,138 per student in 2006, which is 5 percent greater than the previous year.
D.C.'s per-pupil allocation was about $13,500, according to the census, more than $4,000 per student above that average. Expenditures in Maryland and Virginia also topped the national average.
Giving those 1700 kids $7,500 vouchers saves the taxpayers 10.2
megabucks annually, exposing the lie that the Dems give a shit
about fiscal responsibility as well.
|3.11.09 @ 11:36AM|#
I might mention that I have actually seen the cards used for card check by some unions now, to get elections underway. They are deeply, deeply deceptive; sent as flyers to people's homes with glossy magazines, they are pitched as "would you like more information" type responses, not "wouldn't you like Union X to try to organize your workplace".
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:36AM|#
"By doing so, is that not a requirement of some sort? In
reality, card check is being used to intimidate."
Hilarious.
What was that, like two posts after FrBunny said "hey saying
arguments against card check are couched in yelling about the
potential for union violence is a straw man" someone makes that
argument...
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:37AM|#
RC Dean
If they are deceptive the employer can have the NLRB throw out the
results.
They do it all the time.
|3.11.09 @ 11:38AM|#
Umm, FrBunny...Let me post some things from last nite's
thread
If your argument is that those specific posters are being
hypocritical, fine. I mostly agree. But you seem to be using that
as a defense of the card check, which is the definition of straw
man fallacy.
Seward|3.11.09 @ 11:39AM|#
MNG,
Since the majority of gun related deaths in the U.S. are suicides
I'm not quite sure what your point is.
As for union violence, it is common in U.S. history and happens
often enough that it hits the news from time to time. Some recent
examples can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_industrial_disputes#Union_violence
TofuSushi|3.11.09 @ 11:39AM|#
MNG,
Looks like plenty of people are pointing out your errors, that you
still do not seem to understand.
But I was only talking about when you pointed me out the first
time, for not agreeing with you and therefore I must be 'wrong',
even though I was agreeing with you.
Kickstart|3.11.09 @ 11:40AM|#
"I can't view this from work. She still have no tits?"
Sweet!
http://jovemnerd.ig.com.br/news/images/stories/img_natalie_portman_sideboob_05.jpg
|3.11.09 @ 11:40AM|#
"All I can say is welcome to the Big Thicket. Scary-as-shit
place."
Like the ghost lights, for anybody unfamiliar with that area.
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:41AM|#
"No card check supporter ever answers this question."
Well this one does and will right now.
The "secret ballot" thing is bullshit. Union elections are nothing
like governmental elections. If governmental elections were like
union elections the Dems could order the voters to attend pro-Dem
rallies, could ban GOP activists from handing out leaflets to the
voters while distributing pro-Dem leaflets every day to them, could
threaten to close the country down if the Dems did not win, could
discipline any voter who badmouthed the Dems.
Card check acts as a bulwark against that lopsided playing
field.
|3.11.09 @ 11:41AM|#
I agree with MNG's support for free elections via secret ballots to keep those exploited workers who vote for unionization from being unfairly targetted by management. This is what America's all about.
Gilbert Martin|3.11.09 @ 11:41AM|#
"Ain't it funny how logic works?"
Almost as funny as how it doesn't when you try to draw analogies
between two things that have nothing to do with each other.
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:43AM|#
FrBunny
Here are your exact words:
"Yes, MNG, the entire argument on these boards against unions is
bed-wetting that they might ATTACK!"
Well, it actually is quite common for people to base their
arguments against unions, when it comes to card check, on their
"potential for violence." And that is what I just demonstrated to
you.
You're welcome.
Seward|3.11.09 @ 11:43AM|#
MNG,
What I found interesting about the article is how it relates that
most union violence is not directed at management, but at non-union
workers.
Episiarch,
I suspect that some people like it because it is easier to unionize
that way as opposed to a formal vote where campaigning and the like
probably happen. And some people support that because they view
unions as the panacea for all the country's ills. I suspect though
that union membership will remain low in the U.S. because most
American workers will not want to have to put up with the B.S.
associated with being in a Union.
TofuSushi|3.11.09 @ 11:44AM|#
Is MNG going to leave again, like he did on the monkey thread when he was calling himself joe?
|3.11.09 @ 11:45AM|#
I'd be fine with card check if all the workers who vote to unionize could be fired without recourse.
|3.11.09 @ 11:45AM|#
on the monkey thread when he was calling himself
joe
Wha? I must know where this thread is!
|3.11.09 @ 11:46AM|#
And unions are unable to get their message across in the face of
ovewrwhelming corporate control of conversation and printing
presses. The workers are not intelligent enough to determine that
company statements are likely self serving.
No one would ever sigh a union card because his tires might get
flattened in the parking lot. Unions destroying property is just a
myth.
|3.11.09 @ 11:46AM|#
"entire argument" != "quite common"
Thanks anyway though.
Card check acts as a bulwark against that lopsided playing
field.
And, that, for better or worse, was a logical argument. Your
vitriol works against you MNG.
Taktix®|3.11.09 @ 11:46AM|#
Gee FrBunny, you kind of look like a dumbass now, don't
you?
Classy.
Just like a union thug...
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:47AM|#
"As for union violence, it is common in U.S. history and happens
often enough that it hits the news from time to time."
Not NEARLY as common as gun violence. Not even close bro. I'd love
to see you argue otherwise. Love it. Please, please do.
Now, my point is this: arguing that we can't have card check
because unions will unleash their seemingly-ready-to-spring
violence on folks is the same kind of logic a gun control person
could make when he points out that since gun violence is common
(far, far more common than union violence now) we should have legal
measures to PREVENT THE POTENTIAL FOR IT.
My point is that we don't need laws to address POTENTIAL gun
violence, we have laws against using guns for violence. But
likewise we don't need laws for POTENTIAL union violence, because
we in fact already have laws against any of that.
TofuSushi|3.11.09 @ 11:48AM|#
I don't remember unions hiring Pinkertons to beat, shoot and kill management. I have heard of management doing that to workers.
|3.11.09 @ 11:50AM|#
Card check acts as a bulwark against that lopsided playing
field.
Maybe I'm thick but I completely didn't understand that. How can
non-secret ballots help anyone? If people want to vote for the
union, they will in secret balloting just as they would with card
check.
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:50AM|#
And I don't see any problem with card check, no problem at all.
The only opposition to it is this "oh noes the unions will unleash
their potential for violence" argument. And I think that is silly,
just like I think gun control enthusiasts similar arguments
concerning gun owners lethal potential for violence is silly.
A person would be totally free to not sign the card. Totally. To
argue otherwise is to argue that 1. people can't resist legal
social intimidation (a howlingly funny argument for a libertarian
to make) or 2. people might do things that we already have laws
prohibiting.
So I'm in the reverse position you are in Epi, I can't see any
compelling argument against it.
|3.11.09 @ 11:51AM|#
I don't remember unions hiring Pinkertons to beat, shoot and
kill management. I have heard of management doing that to
workers.
The Battle of the Overpass may have been quite some time ago. If we
don't pass card check it will happen daily to union organizers.
notadrian|3.11.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Why do we even need management anyways? If the workers owned the means to production there would be no problems. Why hasn't someone thought of this yet?
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Epi
I don't see it as hurting anyone, as I argued above.
And I see it as making more of a level playing field for
unionization drives.
Look, I'd totally be for other measures to fix this. In fact, I'm
suprised that they have not gone that route, because they would
have a better chance of passing. Things like preventing employers
from requiring employees attend anti-union rallies during
unionization election periods and such.
Gilbert Martin|3.11.09 @ 11:54AM|#
"I'd be fine with card check if all the workers who vote to
unionize could be fired without recourse."
Bingo - the government already stacks the deck against employers by
interfereing with their freedom of contract.
Of course the government never had any legitimate Constitutonal
authority to ever enact any labor laws to begin with.
They are delegated the power to regulate interstate commerce only -
i.e specific transactions of shipments of goods across state lines
wherein title to the property transfers from one party to the
other.
Employment agreements aren't interstate commerce.
|3.11.09 @ 11:55AM|#
[/snark]
I swear, every single Democrat who supports this card check thing
loses all respect in my eyes. This is from somebody who wants the
FEDEX exemption removed.
Seward|3.11.09 @ 11:55AM|#
MNG,
Since most people don't belong to Unions it wouldn't be shocking if
the frequency of the former was less than the latter.
Now, as for card check and violence or coercion, I think a
reasonable argument can be made that a system where everyone knows
how you are voting will be one which be more easily gamed by unions
and employers and that this will increase the coercive nature of
the process, not decrease it. Have you addressed why this isn't a
reasonable argument?
|3.11.09 @ 11:56AM|#
Obama had more money than McCain. The "playing field" wasn't level. Let's have a do over.
Warty|3.11.09 @ 11:57AM|#
I can't see any compelling argument against it.
I must be thick too, because it looks like your support is based on
"hey, why not?"
MNG|3.11.09 @ 11:57AM|#
I guess they've latched on to this because (and here is a secret
that might startle many folks here) IT IS ALREADY LEGAL TO UNIONIZE
VIA THESE CARDS.
Yep. It actually happens. Read some labor law and venture outside
of libertarian blogs and you'd be suprised what you might
find!
It's just the NLRB prefers unionization efforts to be conducted via
secret ballot elections than via the cards.
But I imagine that since the cards have been part of labor law for
decades they were latched onto.
Another argument you hear is similar to the ones we keep seeing on
these thread, but in reverse: that we actually have many laws
preventing some of the worst employer abuses during election
periods, but that they are not enough of a deterent and so we need
card check to level the playing field.
One difference is that there is abundant empirical support for this
argument (the NLRB hands out penalties for employers doing this
kind of stuff like Santa hands out presents and it doesn't seem to
slow it down).
notadrian|3.11.09 @ 11:58AM|#
can we please also make all elections non-secret. Have a list on the internet of who voted for whom. I can't see any issues with knowing how everyone in the country votes for everything.
MNG|3.11.09 @ 12:00PM|#
Joe, the Savior and Messiah of the Left, Blessed be His Name, is
being nurtured at the Left's Fortress of Clue-less
Collectivization, building up his skills, meditating and
transforming himself into the long awaited Resurrected Joe the
Conquerer.
And upon His Return he is gonna whoop you guys, banish you into the
Lake of Sensitivity Training, and usher in a 1,000 year period of
left-Libertarianism on this blog.
You guys have been forewarned!
Meanwhile, we leftists here muddle through the best we can, but
with the Hope of His Return giving us strength...
Warty|3.11.09 @ 12:00PM|#
Why are there federal labor laws, anyway? Other than for, say, INTERSTATE truckers.
MNG|3.11.09 @ 12:01PM|#
"They are delegated the power to regulate interstate commerce
only"
And nothing made via employment agreements ever enters the stream
of interstte commerce!
Kickstart|3.11.09 @ 12:02PM|#
"Among them were a black grandmother from Akron, Ohio, who
surrendered $4,000 in cash after Tenaha police pulled her over, and
an interracial couple from Houston, who gave up more than $6,000
after police threatened to seize their children and put them into
foster care, the court documents show."
Why would they carry so much cash?
MNG|3.11.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Warty
The NLRA laws were passed to try to rationalize the rampant labor
strife that was going on right before it...Wildcat strikes, work
stoppages that effected the whole economy, violence, etc. Some
pretty severe restrictions were put on labor too (secondary
boycotts for example).
MNG|3.11.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Gotta run guys.
Oh, Warty, I do feel "why not", but my positive reasons for this
are discussed at 11:53.
Seward|3.11.09 @ 12:03PM|#
J sub D,
Well, if it does lead to greater unionization we will see higher
unemployment and lower wages for non-union workers as the cost of
labor increases.
Gilbert Martin|3.11.09 @ 12:04PM|#
"Why are there federal labor laws, anyway? Other than for, say,
INTERSTATE truckers."
Because activist judges colluded with corrupt legislators to create
new powers for government that were never actually delegated to it
in the Constitution.
|3.11.09 @ 12:06PM|#
Why would they carry so much cash?
Irrelevant. That very question fuels the forfeiture.
|3.11.09 @ 12:07PM|#
I don't know why libertarians are always called anti-labor. I think workers are perfectly within their rights to strike and collective bargain.
Gilbert Martin|3.11.09 @ 12:08PM|#
"And nothing made via employment agreements ever enters the
stream of interstte commerce!"
It doesn't matter whether it does or not.
That's not what government was delegated the power to
regulate.
It can regulate the product IF it's shipped across a state line to
get it to the customer who is buying it.
It has no authority to regulate the labor agreements the employer
and employees enter into to manufacture the product.
Seward|3.11.09 @ 12:14PM|#
MNG,
The NLRA laws were passed to try to rationalize the rampant
labor strife that was going on right before it...
Well, I don't really know how rampant labor strife was in 1935.
However, if my experience of today regarding the hype associated
with current government actions is any indication it probably
wasn't as significant as was claimed at the time.
Second, what labor strife did exist was as much a result of
government action - such as the New Deal 1.0 and its efforts to
cartelize industries - as anything.
|3.11.09 @ 12:15PM|#
"I don't know why libertarians are always called anti-labor. I
think workers are perfectly within their rights to strike and
collective bargain."
And management would or should be within their rights to fire them
when they do.
|3.11.09 @ 12:16PM|#
He's tolerable, I guess.
I think he's a Trolloc, and a Darkfriend to boot.
[tugs braid]
TofuSushi|3.11.09 @ 12:18PM|#
bookworm, I wonder what happened to joe?
It appears that he stopped using that name and is sticking with MNG
ever since the monkey cartoon thread.
|3.11.09 @ 12:19PM|#
The White House is not fond of the program but issued a
statement saying currently enrolled kids should not have their
educations disrupted.
Dunno, perhaps if Obama had enrolled his own kids in those DC
public schools he would grasp that most of those poor black kids
warehoused in government indoctrination camps aren't actually
getting an education, and thus there's nothing to disrupt.
Kickstart|3.11.09 @ 12:21PM|#
"I wonder what happened to joe?"
I hear he's blowing fat, married "bi-sexual" middle managers for
crack money. I also hear he's pretty good. A master of the
finish.
deluded1|3.11.09 @ 12:21PM|#
Are you kidding? Unions using violence is a myth? Heh. They do
flatten tires, they do take out windows. They rarely do direct
violence to a person though, that I've noticed (when trying to get
a business to unionize). After....
The problem is that once they're in, the union and new union
members start intimidating. And most often, no violence is
threatened. Social, fiscal, and economic threats are made. Passed
over for promotions, less pay for promotions, given crap work,
crappy desk, everyone else getting perks, etc.
In addition, most often those cards are handed out by union rep's
to workers, which asks you to fill out the information if you're
interested, then send them in. What they don't tell you is that
it's a contract, and you are often swindled into giving the union
right to attorney. Thanks to union laws, "but I didn't know" isn't
a good excuse, and you'll need time, lawyers and lots of money to
get out of it.
Unions in some situations can be a good thing. I just haven't been
in them yet.
deluded1|3.11.09 @ 12:24PM|#
In addition, larger companies often move their factories overseas if a union threatens to be created. J&J has a long history of this.
|3.11.09 @ 12:24PM|#
"I don't know why libertarians are always called anti-labor.
I think workers are perfectly within their rights to strike and
collective bargain."
And management would or should be within their rights to fire them
when they do.
And the minority of workers who voted against the unionization
should be free to not join the union or pay union dues.
Libertarians generally aren't anti-union -- they're
anti-the-slew-of-collectivist-laws-preventing-completely-free-negotiations-about-wages-and-working-conditions.
Somehow that precise, targeted opposition to certain bad laws gets
mistranslated into "anti-union".
Warty|3.11.09 @ 12:25PM|#
I think from now on I'll picture MNG as Frank Sobotka. No more women in the containers!
Kickstart|3.11.09 @ 12:26PM|#
"Irrelevant. That very question fuels the forfeiture."
I knew someone would point that out. My point is that only a moron
carries six G's in cash. It's just stupid.
BDB|3.11.09 @ 12:36PM|#
Kickstart--
It's not just the people with cash. They're seizing peoples
*automobiles* when they can't find any cash, threatening things
like forcing their children into foster care if they don't.
This isn't any different from the mob.
Srssly, fuck the police.
|3.11.09 @ 12:37PM|#
My point is that only a moron carries six G's in cash. It's
just stupid.
I've bought and sold cars for cash. The people who insisted on cash
had legitimate reasons for wanting that. They weren't stupid.
Stupid would have been handing over their car to a stranger in
exchange for a scrap of paper signed by said stranger promising it
was a good piece of paper. (We'll ignore the whole issue of
fed-issued pieces of fiat paper for the moment ...)
BDB|3.11.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Also a lot of poorer people don't really know how to get a bank account, or don't trust banks.
Elemenope|3.11.09 @ 1:13PM|#
For Jericho fans, don't expect too much. (Not a video
link.)
Well, it's not nothing, but it's not much like you say. I really
liked that show. :(
|3.11.09 @ 1:19PM|#
I don't know why libertarians are always called anti-labor.
I think workers are perfectly within their rights to strike and
collective bargain.
You and me both.
|3.11.09 @ 1:31PM|#
My point is that only a moron carries six G's in cash. It's
just stupid.
In 1981 I cashed a re-enlistment bonus check, deposited a bit and
walked two miles home to show $6000 in cash to my then wife.
The CPI Inflation
Calculator says that that would equal $13,936.83 today.
We spent $2500 of it on a used car the next day and then I put
almost all of the rest in the bank.
I was neither a moron nor stupid.
|3.11.09 @ 1:38PM|#
If every employee in a company wants to be in a union, does the
company have the right to say no? I honestly don't know.
If not, that's a problem. It's already a problem that an employee
that does not want to be in the union is forced to accept the
bargaining agreement.
FWIW|3.11.09 @ 3:34PM|#
bookworm, I wonder what happened to joe?
"It appears that he stopped using that name and is sticking with
MNG ever since the monkey cartoon thread."
Bullshit, MNG likes to throw questions at Sushi, because MNG/Sushi
is the same person. It's his rhetorical device.
joe had a different style. same beliefs; different style.
|3.11.09 @ 3:50PM|#
And nothing made via employment agreements ever enters the
stream of interstte commerce!
Well, MNG, "interstate commerce" need not be interpreted to mean
anything that could enter the stream of interstate commerce. It
almost certainly wasn't originally intended to mean that, and the
SCOTUS decision adopting that interpretation is famously subject to
attack.
If every employee in a company wants to be in a union, does the
company have the right to say no?
No, it doesn't have that right. Many states even make it very hard
to close a plant after it has been unionized.
|3.11.09 @ 3:52PM|#
I think workers are perfectly within their rights to strike
and collective bargain.
Me, too. My libertarian quarrel with labor law has to do with the
restrictions on the contract rights of employers (the right to
decline to enter a collective bargaining agreement, the right to
fire employees who join unions, etc.).
Labor law is basically a set of laws intended to protect unions
from the consequences of their actions. Very unlibertarian,
that.
union member|3.11.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Nick,
It is called an 'open shop' when one does not have to join. It is a
'closed shop' when one must join as a condition of
employment.
I agree that 'closed shops' are inherently immoral since they
coerce workers into a bargaining situation they do not wish to
have. Closed shops are preferable to weak negotiators or flat out
poor workers. They make the avg of all workers good and bad. A good
worker would be better off without a closed shop. It's not unlike
welfare.
At least at my workplace, the closed shop tends to create apathy on
the part of mgmt. You hear a lot of "Hey, sorry, but your contract
says such and such; can't do anything." And that in turn
demoralizes the work force. It also demoralizes the work force when
the might of your Union dues and lawyers saves the ass of some pile
you have to work with that you wish would go away.
Card check is important to Unions because their memberships are
down. They work like any other business (non profit essentially):
maximize revenues. They don't worry about profits because they
don't or really can't show one. That's why they have so much sleazy
money to throw around.
So more members=more payola. Deluded1 explained very well the
problem with card check. It's not unlike those trial offers you get
in the mail. Wise people throw them away.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245